Obama Fanboy and 2 Leftist Actors to Make Movie About Dan Rather’s Time Traveling Computer

Dan Rather and Mary Mapes had a great story about the time George W. Bush illegitimately got into the Texas Air National Guard. There was only one problem. Their damning letter was written with a copy of Microsoft Word which didn’t exist back then.

So their letter proved to be as real as Robert Redford’s hair color.

Rather refused to retract the story, then retracted it, then unretracted it, and hangs around Cuban’s network pretending to be a journalist while insisting that a time traveling computer was to blame.

Now the exciting story of that time traveling computer is coming to a theater near you (probably not).

Directed by James Vanderbilt of the Vanderbilt clan, responsible for those two new Spider Man movies you hated, and White House Down, an Obama fanboy flick about Obama killing Republicans, and starring the still mostly-alive Robert Redford and Cate Blanchett, the movie will adapt producer Mary Mapes’ ridiculous self-serving time-traveling computer memoir “Truth and Duty”.

And yes, it was all Bush’s fault.

The media coverage of Truth, true to form, avoids mentioning the whole Microsoft Word problem and just mentions offhand that the documents were alleged to be forgeries. (The only way it could be an allegation is if there was a time traveling computer with a copy of Microsoft Word.)

Mapes’ book is an unintentionally hilarious read.

“There had been anything like it, a mobilization of right-wing internet users… they would use their numbers, their volume and their sheer insistence to rip at a respected anchor/reporter, a news program and a network,” the elitist Mapes writes, outraged that ordinary people could dare challenge her.

“Their partisan claims, unsubstantiated as they were to any observer who clung to objecitivty, were stated and restated incessantly as absolute, unshakeable facts,” Mapes writes of the conservative bloggers who took her and Rather down.

Mapes misses the irony that this is exactly what her media does.

One of those bloggers, Charles Johnson, has gone to the left and spends his time ranting about Sarah Palin. But even he hasn’t backed away from the document scam.

“The reputations we had worked so hard to build were trashed repeatedly by bloggers who sat in the dark and signed off on angry missives,” Mary Mapes whined.

But the liberal elites take care of their own and Mapes is getting a belated bailout while Rather is getting his reputation rehabbed. All it will take is a few liberal investors willing to subsidize this propaganda flick.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

DogmaelJones1

About Robert Redford’s mind (aside from the dye job): A River Runs Through It, does it not? But he went white-water rafting in it and struck a boulder called reality.

Daniel Greenfield

Too bad he couldn’t score on the Quiz Show

DogmaelJones1

Then he was a professional Horse Whisperer, until he whispered a sweet-nothing in one mare’s ear and got his butt kicked. The owner sued him for making lewd and upsetting the poor thing.

Tom von Mises

Oh, that’s a bunch of horsepucky!

hiernonymous

Mapes’ claim that her story met journalistic standards because nobody had ever proved the documents to be forgeries is absurd. Rathers’ similar stance is a sad piece of punctuation to his career. It’s a sorry lesson in journalistic integrity. But trying to put an Obama angle on this is pretty sketchy.

Pete

White House Down is a pretty disgusting film. Looks like agitprop piece to me. Given the Left’s fear of the militia (remember the Michigan militia?) and the constant fear mongering against anyone with a Gadsen flag, the particulars of the movie and the timing, it is not stretch to think that it is a propaganda film.

“White House Down is a 2013 American political action-thriller film directed by Roland Emmerich about an assault on the White House by a paramilitary group and the Capitol Police Officer who tries to stop them

Jamie Foxx as James William Sawyer, the President of the United States”

I put it in the same boat as Red Dawn, just on the other gunwhale. The Obama connection is still a bit of overreach.

Pete

Red Dawn was made during the Cold War. The local Cuban commander was portrayed in a somewhat favorable light. The Russian partisan hunter was not. A person might say the film is hawkish, but could one say that it was made to make the Democrats look bad?

Daniel Greenfield

For Red Dawn to be the equivalent of White House Down, Jimmy Carter would have had to be the villain

objectivefactsmatter

Or the kids would go around blasting at hippie communists like Bill Ayers and his local comrades.

hiernonymous

I’d say that both films involved cartoonish exaggerations of pet threats. Do we have right-wing militias in this country. Yep. Heck, the internet is full of their bluster, threatening secession, revolution, watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots, etc. Are they likely to take down the White House? Of course not. Is Cuba (or, in the remake, North Korea) in any position to invade the U.S.? Obviously not. Both involve absurd premises to justify putting Americans in the unlikely position of gritty, never-say-die underdogs.

Pete

Cuba was not the threat in Red Dawn. They were the allies, the lackeys. the threat was very real. It was the Soviet Union. Perhaps at work you might see evidence of its’ influence operations to this day.

The Soviets messed many things up in their military and they may not have prevailed in Central Europe in a 3rd World War scenario. They had many deficiencies in C3, initiative and other areas. But they certainly had number and throw weight.

The film is an alternate 1980s history where WW3 broke out and the Soviet bloc (not just the Cubans) initially had the upper hand. A alternate history where WW3 has broken out is not outlandish nor improbable. It is worthy of treatment in literature and film. What was improbable was the size and scale of invasion of America (for the time period). A more realistic treatment of partisans behind soviet block lines might the militias set up or aided by the CIA in Europe/Asia Minor.

The film opened on August 10, 1984. Which means it was in production and the script written in 1983 or before. The high water mark of the Soviet bloc was 1979. Angola and Mozambique were client states. Ethiopia and Somalia were client states and that was a WTF moment. Last but not least the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan. It was not a pretty time.

As noted the film opened in August 1984. We are talking less than 5 years form the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and and the film debut. We are talking about 3 or 4 years from the invasion to the a start of production.

What was John Forbes (Boston Brahmin/silver spoon) Kerry doing? He was down with the struggle marching with the SANE/Nuclear Freeze protesters. that is what life was like. There was a Soviet high tide and lots of fellow travellers. And yes they did whine about the film.

You mention Cuba and North Korea as being unable to take down the U.S. No kidding! In the 1st film the Cubans were allied with the Soviet Union. The USSR was capable. In the 2nd film the villain was China until a script rewrite. So why did you throw out that canard?

CowboyUp

Also, Red Dawn was set in a world where South and Central America had fallen to communism, the USA was isolated, and the Pact was making their big push to finally eliminate us. That was the soviet strategy in the real world, as the brief opening of their archives proved.

hiernonymous

I watched that film with fellow soldiers while training at Fort Sill the summer it came out. We laughed through it even then.

Yes, I know the second film originally featured China as the Scary Bad Guys. It’s silly either way. In both original and remake, the films portray an all-American town shocked by the sudden arrival of war on their doorsteps, and the transition of the plucky young residents from stunned survivors to resolute patriot guerrillas.

Both versions are a representation of Cold War paranoia run amok. The idea of the Cubans, North Koreans, or even Chinese delivering sustainable ground forces to the interior of the U.S. is silly on its face. IIRC, the remake tries to explain it away with an EMP attack. But the Soviets were powerful at the time, you say? In a sense. They had very strong ground forces in Europe, and could have given us a run for our money there. They had a large nuclear force. Their navy would have taken some time to hunt down. But here’s the thing – the only circumstances that make the first version plausible would have been if NORAD had been stripped of forces to shore up a losing fight in Germany, but the movie has no indication that the U.S. was a week into a WWIII that was going badly.

So, yes, I consider all the movies in question here to be cartoonish excursions into the bugbears of the day. I have no doubt that you find it absurd that anyone would be worried that there are right-wing extremists who would be willing to carry out that sort of terrorism in the U.S. Based solely on internet rhetoric, well, heck, I’ve been reading posts from “patriots” for years talking about the need to water the tree of liberty with blood, about “taking back” our country, about the Black House. I’ve read posts within the last week pining for another Lee Harvey Oswald, and the poster was rebuked by his fellows, not because they were shocked at someone wishing death on the President, but because it would make him a martyr and increase his popularity. With the sort of hatred seething just beneath the surface of this country, I don’t think that the premise of WHD is any more – or less – absurd than that of Red Dawn.

Pete

“The idea of the Cubans, North Koreans, or even Chinese delivering sustainable ground forces to the interior of the U.S. is silly on its face.”

North Korea. I agree
Cuba was not working alone.

I did write “What was improbable was the size and scale of invasion of America (for the time period).” It was still a good movie. What else am I going to watch? A leftists wet dream like “The Company You Keep”?

As an aside it seems that the victors of the battle of Adrianople were invited in. The study of the Battle of Adrianople was part of the curriculum, which you studied. was it not? Another example is the southern Slavs. It seems that the southern Slavs had been invited into the Byzantium empire and then that region was not part of the empire anymore.

hiernonymous

Adianople was not part of the curriculum, but I’ve done a fair amount of reading on Byzantine history.

I have no doubt that there are those, perhaps you among them, who think that Red Dawn reflected, not cartoonish paranoia, but a legitimate threat. Now consider that the same line of reasoning can be applied tonWHD. What you consider to be an cartoonish, paranoid vision of America’s far right wing might be taken more seriously by others, and there is certainly historical precedent of democracies experiencing right-wing coups and violence from within.

I happen to think that both movies are silly.

Pete

I like some movies flaws and all if it is good versus evil and has a hero archetype. It makes for a good story even though a science adviser or military advisor to a film director would throw the BS flag. I bet they throw the flag a lot.

I liked Joseph Campbell’s work.

hiernonymous

Oh, sure, I agree – there are lots of movies with silly attributes that are still loads of fun. Who doesn’t like Star Wars, space airplanes, sound in vacuum, and all?

Pete

George Lucas was a fan of Joseph Campbell. My understanding is that he consulted with Campbell to ensure he got the archetype stuff right.

IMO, film directors can get the archetype stuff right and have a successful or moderately successful film even though the film has a political message and is preachy. It happens a lot. A lot of directors home in on the archetype stuff, get a blockbuster or two, think they are all that, and then try to get preachy and flop. Rinse & repeat. That is my theory.

“Lucas originally intended to rely heavily on the 1930s Flash Gordon film serials; however, he resorted to Akira Kurosawa’s film The Hidden Fortress, and Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces, because of copyright issues with Flash Gordon”

The quote above does not prove my point (I recognize your standards) as to Lucas consulting Campbell on archetypes, but I read it somewhere, I am not trying to lead you astray and this is not a college paper.

objectivefactsmatter

But the difference is that conservative factions are considered fair game for criticism but violent leftist Utopian dreamers that cause a lot more problems (OWS and similar movements) are rarely used as villains. In fact it’s easier to criticize American patriots than it is to point the criticism and alien darlings of the West, even our enemies.

The bottom line is that it all fits neo-Marxist narratives about how the world works. It’s OK to demonize “oppressors” and conservatives are “oppressors” while leftists are “for the people.” It’s childish thinking that sells.

Pete

” I’ve read posts within the last week pining for another Lee Harvey Oswald”

I have not seen such a post here. But I don’t scour FPM.
Who was the poster? Was it a lefty posing as a conservative?

Sometimes with a poster I’ll use my second best argument instead of my best because I know my best will not convince them. So be careful with the assumptions about the people who use the martyr argument.

Besides so far all the presidential assassins have been Democrats, anarchist, & communists.

hiernonymous

Contrary to some apparent beliefs, I read other sites than FPM.

It doesn’t really matter if it was the fellow’s second best argument. The point is that the impression that there are violent-minded right wing extremists isn’t simply the figment of some lefty producer’s imagination.

J.B.

“White House Down” was not about a “rightwing” militia assault on the White House. It was about evil Republican warmongers trying to murder the master statesman Obama in a coup attempt.

Neither film remotely portrayed Americans as “gritty, never-say-die underdogs,
” and the Soviet Union was the greatest threat on the planet, not a “pet.”

Your fantasies are even more crude snd ridiculous than those of Emmerich and Mapes. But then, lefties have to lie about their agenda because they know that normal people wouldn’t want anything to do with it.

objectivefactsmatter

People miss little details like that.

The overall desire is to give every faction what they want and at the same time promoting a worldview.

Sawyer is portrayed a liberal politician, who has plans for a major peace deal and to remove all U.S. troops from the Middle East, similar to Obama’s plans to slowly withdraw most of America’s forces from Afghanistan. In the film Sawyer’s plan inspires American right-wing extremists to take action against the government.

hiernonymous

Right. So the actor who played the presidential role in a movie decided to model himself after the actual president. Fast forward year, and the director of that movie is making a movie about Mapes & Co, and you decided that of all of the key elements on the story that were headline worthy, you wanted to highlight an Obama connection to an issue that he has, in fact, no actual connection to. As I said, seems a bit of a stretch.

I share your disdain for Mapes and her doubling down on her poor journalism; I just see the Obama headline as partisan obsessiveness spoiling a potentially good story.

J.B.

Mapes is a rabid Obama supporter, and fantasies about evil “rightwing” Republicans subjecting noble lefty Dems to calumny are in every Administration meme, press release and speech.

“Bush did it!”

J.B.

I just read the synopsis of that film, and the laughs I got were worth the bile that rose in my throat.

Daniel Greenfield

Basically a lefty fantasy

objectivefactsmatter

In Red Dawn, the “good guys” fought communist invaders, didn’t they? They didn’t go around fighting the Weathermen or the Black Panthers.

Demonizing conservatives and creating villains that can be associated with conservatives is par for the course in Hollywood. I think it’s partly because conservatives can appreciate that they’re not as sensitive about these matters (they’ll still go and watch the films without worrying about the subtle political messages like that) as all of the leftist political identity “victim” groups. But it also fits the agenda many of them have in moving the “dinosaurs” out of the way of “progress.”

I once tried to make a list of films that unrealistically demonized bankers, “corporations” and “conservatives” as natural villains and I just gave up. There were way too many to count without turning it in to a serious project.

hiernonymous

As I noted below, it’s a bit difficult to find ways to cast Americans as the gritty underdog. Both movies involve taking a real but minor threat and using a cartoonish exaggeration to put the good guys in peril.

I’m pretty sure that making villains out of the rich and powerful dates from before liberalism and conservatism. Villains have to have power in order to abuse it.

objectivefactsmatter

“I’m pretty sure that making villains out of the rich and powerful dates from before liberalism and conservatism.”

Yes, but is that rational in the USA? Especially when technology is continually putting more and more power in the hands of anyone that knows how to exploit their opportunities? I can see slave owners as villains who are also considered “mainstream” Americans. But chasing after this ridiculous image as articulated by OWS, Noam Chomsky and others, not to mention certain international factions, is not patriotic in any sense. Not the films must be patriotic. But looking at trends…

“Villains have to have power in order to abuse it.”

Conflating “rich” and “villain” is anti-American. There are plenty of realistic models for powerful villains. Having people sitting around boardrooms looking the part of CEO and boardmembers of IBM or some bank or whoever, after a while, starts to feel like part of a larger campaign.

hiernonymous

Do I understand you correctly that you think movie villains should be vetted to make sure that they are “rational” in the existing context? I thought that PC was supposed to be a bad thing.

Few movies are “realistic.” A very common theme, for example, is the resolute policeman/intelligence agent/soldier/what have you who, falsely accused of a crime actually committed by someone else, often someone higher in his own agency, must elude capture long enough to solve the crime. Such movies and shows generally end with the crime solved, the proof delivered in a dramatic final scene full of gunfire and explosions, with the perp led away muttering while the hero picks up his life and, often, gets the girl. In reality, Our Hero, having delivered the proof, would be tried and locked away for 50 years for all of the mayhem he committed while solving the crime. If we insisted that the movies reflect reality, who would go?

You seem concerned that Hollywood is engaging in some subtle, or you might say not-so-subtle, attempt to advance a particular political viewpoint. I think that’s silly – Hollywood is engaged in an attempt to make as much money as possible – but let’s go with the propaganda aspect for a moment. If you are right, so what? Let the conservatives collect their considerable resources and advance an an alternative vision and put it in the marketplace. Problem solved.

In fact, I would say that it has long since happened, or that your concern was unmerited to begin with, because there is no shortage of hung-ho conservative oriented fantasy out there. Ever since the success of Top Gun, there has been a pretty much nonstop stream of military recruiting videos and hagiographies disguised as TV shows and movies. The police and military are the heroes of a whole industry of crime procedurals that generally reinforce conservative values and whose villains are spies, sexual deviants, gamblers, etc, while the heroes are the resolute, crafty, intelligent representatives of the status quo (NCIS, CSI, L&O, etc).

Many of the “powerful as bad guys” reflect our insecurity in the world, the long-standing realization that there are people whose money or position give them the ability to affect our lives in a way that we do not reciprocate, and our conviction that, just maybe, they cannot always be trusted to act in our best interests. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. There is nothing “un-American” about that. Not to mention that it’s the rich who make villains who can commit interesting crimes. A poor thug might make for an interesting story or two, but if you want helicopters and limousines and yachts racing around and burning, well, it’s the government and the rich who have access to such things.

No doubt Les Miserables was “un-French,” and “Crime and Punishment” was “un-Russian,” but I would suggest that questioning, lampooning, and caricaturing the rich and powerful is as American as Mark Twain.

objectivefactsmatter

“Do I understand you correctly that you think movie villains should be vetted to make sure that they are “rational” in the existing context? I thought that PC was supposed to be a bad thing.”

I’m only saying that I have different standards than most Hollywood writers, directors and producers, or what they end up with.

“If we insisted that the movies reflect reality, who would go?”

I like documentaries. But you’re right and I don’t expect films to take a documentary approach when their goal is to entertain. And the final argument for entertainment is about success. Therefore I’m not even really criticizing the productions as much as I’m worried about why certain themes and caricature are successful. But I also think that there must be some who kind of push things to promote an agenda. Maybe by instinct, maybe consciously.

“You seem concerned that Hollywood is engaging in some subtle, or you might say not-so-subtle, attempt to advance a particular political viewpoint. I think that’s silly – Hollywood is engaged in an attempt to make as much money as possible – but let’s go with the propaganda aspect for a moment. If you are right, so what? Let the conservatives collect their considerable resources and advance an an alternative vision and put it in the marketplace. Problem solved.”

I’m just commenting. That’s the extent of my “anti-Hollywood” activism. I also some times try to remind people that it’s just entertainment. The primary objective is to get you to pay for it. People just need to be aware of what they think the educational value of any film might be. Obviously some films are intended to educate, others to entertain. I think that it’s not rare for productions to try to do both. and to add the “education” (propaganda) component in subtle ways.

But mostly what I’m complaining about is the lack of imagination and relying on stereotypes that end up attacking whatever group of people the stereotypes represent. It’s a judgment call. I’m not calling for interference. I’m calling for people to think more critically about what they’re consuming.

“In fact, I would say that it has long since happened, or that your concern was unmerited to begin with, because there is no shortage of hung-ho conservative oriented fantasy out there. Ever since the success of Top Gun, there has been a pretty much nonstop stream of military recruiting videos and hagiographies disguised as TV shows and movies.”

I’m not worried because I want more of “my” propaganda. I’d rather see stories with more nuance and less dependence on stereotypes. Stereotypes help people process the film or any story by keeping things simple. But the main characters should be more nuanced. I’m not expecting anything different. I’m pointing these things out hoping that people will think a bit more about how they view these stories and how these stories influence our perceptions of reality.

“No doubt Les Miserables was “un-French,” and “Crime and Punishment” was “un-Russian,” but I would suggest that questioning, lampooning, and caricaturing the rich and powerful is as American as Mark Twain.”

Anti is “against.” Some times it’s useful to go against some thing or the other. At some point, it can be an attack against the very thing, whether intended or not. It’s “anti-dermal” to stick a needle in someone past the barrier of the skin. But we need to some times draw blood or inject chemicals intended to help the subject’s health.

Telling stories is similar. We want to have a “full” story and some times we fill the narrative with stereotypes that make the story easier to process by allowing us to focus on the main subjects. But when the story is about endless jabbing of needles (that might seem trivial as isolated events), and when an entire genre becomes about developing and demonizing invented stereotypes, that’s different than trivial stereotypes that are more or less transparent and balanced in the larger discourse.

I don’t see any great need for action. I just want people to think more about what they see and what the messages are to various people. Because we as humans don’t process fiction in any uniform way. Having conversations help us all to make more use out of what we see and what we think it means.

It’s not “anti” to put the needle in if you have a valid medical reason to do so. It’s “anti” life to keep putting needles in long after there is any real need to do it, especially when it starts to become clear that these needles are harming the health of the subject. In storytelling it’s a lot harder to come up with thresholds to decide when that occurs. But piling on to harmful stereotypes about “bankers” is just as harmful and in some ways more harmful than mocking the more obvious ethnic stereotypes. There is a strong trend to mock successful people and to create stereotypes that lead to envy of successful people. That is not patriotic to America or even to the human race unless it can lead to something productive. Mocking kings who inherit their thrones or use arbitrary justifications to hold on to power, that is good if we think that a purely Machiavellian approach in politics is bad. Mocking factory owners that don’t care about their workers is good, when that problem exists. When the problem has long been eradicated and the harassment actually comes from the government, but the deceptive stereotypes continue, one might wonder about that. Since attacking big government is also part of that tradition of pursuing progress through criticism, it’s a wonder why we don’t use the EPA or the IRS as villains. Why do you suppose that is the case? The IRS certainly has far more power than any private organization that I can think of. They’d make a great villain.

For better and for worse, politics are a part of almost everything we do these days. And we must recognize as much as possible what hidden agendas might be at work. Not inventing conspiracy theories that don’t exist but identifying trends that might be harmful or could otherwise be improved if we pay more attention.

Pete

“Villains have to have power in order to abuse it.”

What is power?

Would you recognize it in all its’ forms?

hiernonymous

Power is the ability to get other people to do what you want them to do, rather than what they would do left to their own devices.

I seriously doubt it.

Pete

I had initially wanted to use the example of Thulsa Doom in the movie Conan.

hiernonymous

“Come to me, my child!”

J.B.

Disgruntled Republicans are not a real threat, trolltard. They don’t even block Obama’s treasonous policies and appointees, much less launch terrorist attacks to accomplish a Presidential coup.

“White House Down” was a comedy and anybody who even watched it is a loon. You probably have it on file and watch Channing Tatum sweat and heave in slow-mo.

J.B.

And oh, yeah. I’m pretty sure your favorite movie made conservstive Republicans the villains, and not “the rich and powerful.” You do know the Dems and lefties are richer and more powerful than Repubs and conservatives, right?

I have to wonder how much of your comments are lies, how much are delusion and how much are sheer stupidity.

hiernonymous

“Disgruntled Republicans are not a real threat, trolltard. ”

Apparently, not everyone agrees with you. And you should spend a little time at places like the Southern Nationalist Network.

hiernonymous

“‘White House Down’ was a comedy….”

I agree. That’s why I compared it to the equally cartoonish Red Dawn.

“You probably have it on file and watch Channing Tatum sweat and heave in slow-mo.”

You have some odd fantasies.

J.B.

Red Dawn didn’t have leftwing Democrat villains trying to murder noble, superbad Republicans who enact perfect foreign policies. It didn’t have a slew of conservative actors, either. The same “boat” but on the other side of the “gunwale.” As usual, your “analysis” is nothing but crude trolling, and you subjected the few people who read it to another idiotic metaphor.

You don’t even know what a gunwhale is, not that warships have anything to do with comparing two movies that have no similatity with each other, much less naval warfare.

Troll on, dorkmeister.

hiernonymous

No, Red Dawn had cartoon communists trying to hunt down plucky gun owners who defended the country with their constitutionally protected firearms when our military couldn’t. You may or may not recall the lingering shot of the bumper sticker quoting Charlton Heston. RD was a feature-length lesson on the 2d Amendment. Now, I happen to support the right to bear arms, but let’s not be disingenuous and pretend that the premise of the movie was not strongly political, and strongly conservative.

Not sure what you think I know about boats, or why you associate gunwales exclusively with warships. My earliest recollection of the term was from my whitewater canoeing days, when we would have gunwale-jumping races on quiet stretches of the rivers.

“Troll on, dork moister.”

I prefer to try to reason with you, not master you.

Pete

“Mapes’ claim that her story met journalistic standards because nobody had ever proved the documents to be forgeries is absurd. Rathers’ similar stance is a sad piece of punctuation to his career. It’s a sorry lesson in journalistic integrity.”

“But trying to put an Obama angle on this is pretty sketchy.”

These items should have been 2 different posts. Argue all you like, but order of operations matters. You would have got some love on the first one, which would have stood you in good stead for later. You would have gotten the same, more debate or more agreement on the last on the last.

But have it your way.

johnlac

I wouldn’t be surprised to see a movie in the works in the bowels of Hollyweird movie-makers explicitly making villains out of Tea Party members. You know those vicious, bloodthirsty, freedom-hating Tea Partyers who go to rallies waving those placards with evil, violent messages about obeying the constitution and limited government. You have to believe the left is dying to crank out movies with the Tea Party as a huge villain. I didn’t (and won’t) see White House Down. For gp, I never see any flicks with Jamie Foxx in it. Just his presence makes a movie awful.

J.B.

Yeah, Foxx is a real lowlife and overrated as an actor.

tagalog

From the photo, I feel confident in saying “Nice dye job on the hair there, Robert! How old are you anyway, 75? 80? How’s the Mister Natural act otherwise?”

liz

I am so sick of Robert the communist idiot Redford.

pfk1448

Loved him in “The Natural”…great flick, but he and many other celebs need to get out of their ivory tower bubble. The all go to the same parties,events..and don’t forget the ever growing list of award ceremonies..they all work so hard, they all certainly deserve every gift basket they get. Would not want to rock the boat and speak out of line and risk not getting invited to something.

Janice Woods

The “Horse Whisperer” blows smoke into the other end of the horse in attempt to restore Rather and Mapes’ news legacy.

Tom von Mises

Mapes would be more appropriate working for her 5th grade school’s class newspaper.

Rather would be best suited working for the Ministry of Truth (MiniTru).